What do you think Evolution is?

Question

People keep saying that I have no understanding of evolution well I think most of you don't even know the definition. Evolution has two definitions one is Microevolution which is a change in variation (fact) and the other is Macroevolution which is a lie. On Wikipedia they give this example "the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs." This is not possible. No transitional fossils have been found and they never will. If there were ever some animals that slowly changed into a bird then it would have a half stage where it has half feathers and half scales. This animal would be rendered helpless and starve to death. Some people even say that thousand of microevolutions make up a macroevolution which is just stupid. People are so blind now days with this stupid evolution theory.

read this http://www.rae.org/FAQ01.html

Answer 1

The micro/macro evolution distinction is complete bunk with absolutely no basis in legitimate scientific study. If you've got a hundred-thousand years of "micro"evolutionary changes, the odds are that the organism would be substantially different from the ancestor a hundred-thousand years earlier.

Further, it's simply untrue that "no transition fossils have been found and they never will." Since you're so keen on wiki, why don't you look up "transition fossils"?

And why *exactly* would an animal with proto-feathers be "rendered helpless" and starve to death?

Answer 2

I already made this point which counters the idea that macroevolution is only used by creationist fools. Just to go google and type in (define: macroevolution). You'll get some interesting definitions, two from very popular sites usually spammed by a lot of atheists. Wikipedia and TalkOrigins.net I am not making this up, it is very easy to check for yourself so please do. And obviously if macroevolution were only the summation of microevolution then why would there need to be a word for it? Wouldn't it be something more like panevolution, because it spans all the evolution that has happened? Also I get in trouble if I try to use Wikipedia as a source for any of my classes, even at my high school it was frowned upon, so why do people cite it all the time as proof for evolution? Accredited schools won't accept it, so why should anyone on here, let alone an intelligent evolution believer?

Answer 3

Evolution is defined as:

"a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory" (Merriam-Webster)

"The continuing process of change, especially in reference to natural selection." (Medical dictionary)

Or possibly "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

I don't see "macroevolution" or "microevolution" included anywhere there, do you? That's because those terms are *not* used by the scientific community: to them evolution is evolution is evolution.

Now let me suggest you consider something:
Speciation events have been observed a number of times: sub-populations that have become unable to breed with each other any more. This is reproductive isolation, and has been seen in Nereis worms, in Drosophila fruitflies, in Evening Primroses, and in many other organisms.
You do not deny that "microevolution" occurs: which is to say that (for example) pesticide resistance in flies can arise.
So I have two populations of fruitflies that can interbreed. I isolate them for a number of generations until reproductive isolation has occurred (easily repeatable from previous studies, if time-consuming and laborious). I then expose one population to one pesticide, and the other population to a different pesticide. In each population, different pesticide-resistance will arise.
If I then re-introduce the two populations to each other, they will be unable to interbreed and will have measurably different phenotypes. They are different *species*.

Answer 4

What I don't get is why you say that it is stupid for micro evolutions to build up over time. Why not it sounds logical. That's how cancers are formed by little changes in the DNA which cause a big effect eg a cancerous cell.

Answer 5

Dude, stick with 'magic man did it'

Seriously.

No offense, but you just misrespresented evolution, biology, zoology and paeleontology in one foul swipe.

(But I know you're just trying to 'disprove' evoluton, so let's face it, how else would you represent an argument?)

LOL, you sent a link to the 'Revolution Against Evolution' webpages.

When you go to the docs for a flu jab, have you ever wondered why the scientists that used evolutionary theory and biology to develop these vaccines don't call themselves "The Revolution Against Religion"?

Answer 6

"If there were ever some animals that slowly changed into a bird then it would have a half stage where it has half feathers and half scales"

No, it wouldn't be half-scaled and half-feathered. That is a very ignorant statement.

Archaeopteryx, seems to fit the bill (pun intended) nicely...

Answer 7

There is only 1 kind of evolution, and that's "microevolution". "Macroevolution" is just a convenience term used to indicate a large accumulation of microevolutionary changes.

Are you suggesting that there's some magic force keeping the small changes from adding up over time, or did you just not realize what macroevolution is?

(BTW, I don't think evolutionary scientists use those terms. They seem to be used only by creationists who have no idea what they're talking about.)

Answer 8

Micro and macro evolution are not even defined in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

get an education

Transitional fossils do not exist because fossilisation is very rare. Furthermore, in mutational changes there would be no transitional forms. "Transitional fossils" are just a creationist's way of stating they have no understanding of evolution.

Macro evolution by way of mutation has been observed, tested and proved, as has microevolution.

It is entirely unncessary to have an animal with "half feathers and half scales" - a mutation in the gene that causes the skin to make scales could easily create early feathers which would then evolve into fully formed feathers by micro-evolution or by further mutational jumps.

There are a number of documented dinosaur species that show fossilised feathers and yet exhibit other dinosaur-like features such as teeth instead of beaks.

Answer 9

From the answers given, I would hope that you learned a little more about Evolution.

Answer 10

At least you seem to enjoy to advertise your lack in education.

Archaeopteryx. There was some dinosaur fossil with feathers they found recently. If I thought you'd read it I'd look it up for you. Anyway feathers can fulfil many other function besides supporting flight, like body insulation, sexual selection/display, camouflage (ostriches do quite fine being flightless and having feathers, thank you)